Sat July 26 : Meet Buzz Aldrin

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

However, escalating words to violence is not cool

Yes it is when clowns like this stalk you for years, it's the only way to shut them up.
The police and prosecutors agreed.

Yes, agreed, but zapta's words are the politically correct ones... 

[ampdoctor]

Sorry but you're very wrong here! Punching somebody is NEVER acceptable outside of defending yourself from bodily harm. I can't count the number of times some asshole got up in my personal space and pissed me off. If your significant other says something to piss you off is it ok to punch them? How bout your kid, or your boss?

If the man was stalking him for years why didn't he get a restraining order or do something else that deal with it inside the boundaries of the law? If you think what this guy did was physical intimidation or verbal abuse you ain't seen nothing yet! Aldrin could have turned around and walked away at any moment. Hitting punching and physical violence used to deal with a stressful situation fall within the domain of the barbarian, children, and those who are emotionally underdeveloped and can't control themselves. As much as I admire the man, they should have tossed him in a jail cell for the weekend and given him a hefty fine.

[Rigby]

Like with anything, people can be absolutely convinced of something wrong by playing to the "gut", and giving them a gut feeling that either the truth is a lie, and/or that something incorrect makes them feel better or worse, depending on your need.

Boiling things down, the brain thinks in two ways. Analytically, and not. 

Analytical thinking is the kind we're all familiar with.  Book-smarts.  Thinking through a problem, collecting facts, experiment, fact-based conclusion.

Non-analytical thinking is very useful when you're in danger and you need to decide to fight or run instantly.  As such, the quickness inherent to this type of decision leads to a lot of incorrect decisions.  Ever been startled?  You reacted however you reacted that made everyone laugh because of that fight or flight thing.

Turns out that quick fight or flight mechanism can be very easily used to convince someone of whatever you want.  Just make them feel it in their gut.  Make what you want them to believe feel like truth, and they will believe it's true far beyond the point where they've been given the evidence to the opposite.

The gut feeling is powerful.  Learn to speak to it and you can make anyone believe anything.

Politics, sales, and marketing all rely on this phenomenon very heavily.  Religion too, at least some of them.

[Rigby]

Sorry but you're very wrong here! Punching somebody is NEVER acceptable outside of defending yourself from bodily harm.

Don't say you're sorry when you're not. 

Absolutes like that don't really exist.  There are times where physical intervention can prevent worse outcomes, and in those cases the law and morality side with the person that hits first and neutralizes the situation.

If a robber breaks into my home, grabs my daughter as hostage, and tries to use her as a shield, are you saying that I should wait until he kills her before I kill him?

People who are harassed, as Buzz was by this person, feel the same threat I would feel in the above scenario after that much harassment.  I feel it was well within Buzz's right to sock the dude. 

Restraining orders are only valid in a single jurisdiction, because the courts that issue them have limited reach.  This guy followed Buzz all over the Earth.  And, usually, one must be the victim of a violent attack in order to attain a restraining order, anyway, so Buzz probably would never have been able to even get one.  Buzz had used words, and asked nicely that the fella to go away many times.  The guy wasn't hearing him, so Buzz used a language the guy COULD hear, which is the language of I'll Break Your Fuckin' Nose, Asshole, Now Leave Me Alone!

And hey, the guy leaves him alone, now.

Magic.

[Rigby]

By the way, I don't condone violence and I don't own a gun.  I do feel that there are times where violence is indeed a valid solution to a problem.

I also feel that those problems are rare, in reality, at least for adults.

For schoolchildren, I think those problems are quite common, and I will always side with anyone that stands up to a bully in any way, whether in defense of themselves or another.  The effects a single bully has can last decades.

[Kjelt]

Well it is also the blame of governments, people in power having closed societies and meetings that for ages have kept the crowd stupid and misinformed or non-informed by classifying documents as top secret or other bullshit.
This has been going on for ages and some of this stuff now finally comes out and people find themselves betrayed and ask what's more we don't know yet?
I mean why in hell would a government put a 60+ year embargo on some documents if they have nothing to hide? Everybody with a clear mind could only come to the conclusion that there must be something outraging in those documents? Why else keep it secret? And who gives them the autorithy to keep it secret from everybody?

On topic: Concerning the moonlanding, how more open and well informed could you make it? It was broadcasted live on tv with everybody watching for pete sake?
No conspiracy there, how else would all those hundreds of kg's of moonrock ended up here in laboratories and musea?

[ampdoctor]

There are times where physical intervention can prevent worse outcomes, and in those cases the law and morality side with the person that hits first and neutralizes the situation.

If a robber breaks into my home, grabs my daughter as hostage, and tries to use her as a shield, are you saying that I should wait until he kills her before I kill him?

That argument is ridiculous! You're groping around trying to find some situation to justify broken logic. If you can't tell the difference between the two situations then you're an idiot. Of course you can use violence to protect your daughter from a robber or hostage taker. That's clearly defense of a life threatening situation.

[Rigby]

Well it is also the blame of governments, people in power having closed societies and meetings that for ages have kept the crowd stupid and misinformed or non-informed by classifying documents as top secret or other bullshit.
This has been going on for ages and some of this stuff now finally comes out and people find themselves betrayed and ask what's more we don't know yet?
I mean why in hell would a government put a 60+ year embargo on some documents if they have nothing to hide? Everybody with a clear mind could only come to the conclusion that there must be something outraging in those documents? Why else keep it secret? And who gives them the autorithy to keep it secret from everybody?

There are lots of good reasons to obscure that stuff.

Usually it is because of a tiny bit of information included that could give a spy enough information to draw a connection between X and Y that could not be made otherwise.  Sometimes it is because technical procedures or processes are referred to or mentioned by name which could also be used to help a nation learn to build nuclear weaponry.  There are lots of valid reasons.

On topic: Concerning the moonlanding, how more open and well informed could you make it? It was broadcasted live on tv with everybody watching for pete sake?
No conspiracy there, how else would all those hundreds of kg's of moonrock ended up here in laboratories and musea?

It doesn't matter how much evidence you provide.  Someone that knows deep down that they were fakes will not be swayed by ANY evidence to the contrary.  You could literally fly a moon landing denier to the moon and they would not change their opinion.  "Oh sure we can do it NOW, that's easy."  You could show them all the gear left behind and they would just claim you planted it all yesterday.

Logic is not a valid approach.  I don't know that there is a valid approach to these people, honestly.

[Rigby]

There are times where physical intervention can prevent worse outcomes, and in those cases the law and morality side with the person that hits first and neutralizes the situation.

If a robber breaks into my home, grabs my daughter as hostage, and tries to use her as a shield, are you saying that I should wait until he kills her before I kill him?

That argument is ridiculous! You're groping around trying to find some situation to justify broken logic. If you can't tell the difference between the two situations then you're an idiot. Of course you can use violence to protect your daughter from a robber or hostage taker. That's clearly defense of a life threatening situation.

Not MY life.  You specifically mentioned harm to self.  It should not require a precise example to convey to you that there are times when violence IS the answer. Like I said, those times are rare, and I think you're being a little naïve to think of it in absolutes.  Life is one giant shade of gray.

I don't like violence, I think violence is unnecessarily used about 99.9999% of the time, and I think there are times when violence is the only answer.

[Kjelt]

There are lots of good reasons to obscure that stuff.
Usually it is because of a tiny bit of information included that could give a spy enough information to draw a connection between X and Y that could not be made otherwise.  Sometimes it is because technical procedures or processes are referred to or mentioned by name which could also be used to help a nation learn to build nuclear weaponry.  There are lots of valid reasons.

I am not talking about military or science secret documents, those documents are never closed for the public for xxxx years, for the public those documents do not exist 
I am talking about the investigations around JFK for instance, only to be opened at 2029  What's in there that is soo secret we can not know about it? Probably nothing, all the extremely embarrassing stuff is deleted so what's the point in still holding it a secret. The same in my country, we had a queen in the 60's that relied on a psychic for advice and she was married to a man that sold out to weapon dealers and sold public stuff from the royalty, just a big scumbag but those documents are also closed.

My personal opinion no matter how bad the information really is what is inside those documents, by declaring it a  secret and withholding the information from the public, that same public is making stories and fantasies that are ten times worse  .

[Rigby]

I am not talking about military or science secret documents, those documents are never closed for the public for xxxx years, for the public those documents do not exist 
I am talking about the investigations around JFK for instance, only to be opened at 2029  What's in there that is soo secret we can not know about it? Probably nothing, all the extremely embarrassing stuff is deleted so what's the point in still holding it a secret. The same in my country, we had a queen in the 60's that relied on a psychic for advice and she was married to a man that sold out to weapon dealers and sold public stuff from the royalty, just a big scumbag but those documents are also closed.

My personal opinion no matter how bad the information really is what is inside those documents, by declaring it a  secret and withholding the information from the public, that same public is making stories and fantasies that are ten times worse  .

There is actually a lot of evidence now that LBJ (Kennedy's Vice President and successor) had him killed.  He was that type of guy, too.

I agree about being open.  Individuals should have the right to privacy, and governments should have a duty of publicity, as in an obligation to make things public.  Saying something is sensitive information that should be classified solely to hide ones own mistakes should be grounds for immediate dismissal from any government employment.

If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.

[Kjelt]

Well we definitely are witnesses of an era where secrets can no longer remain secrets, because individuals have the moral sense to share them among the public 

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I can't count the number of times some asshole got up in my personal space and pissed me off.

Surely they didn't try hard enough? There has to be something that would make you punch a guy straight in the face. A punch was the best message possible to help the impertinent guy comprehend quickly: "stop that now". Yes all the politically correct shit is cool in theory, but in the real world this is a proven solution that works well...    Do you really think any kind politically correct words from Buzz would have worked so well? I doubt it, the guy was clearly bullying him, is that the kind of person that attends to educated reasons? That's a well deserved punch, in my opinion.

[kolonelkadat]

The police and prosecutors agreed.

Apparently walking on the moon has its privileges.  Others are sent to jail for much less than that.

In my country, (well, in my area of the country), the retard would be guilty of misdemeanor and Mr. Aldrin would be considered to have acted in self defense. Gotta love the 'fightin words' laws.

Without provocation, uses to or of another person in such other person´s presence, opprobrious or abusive words which by their very utterance tend to incite to an immediate breach of the peace, that is to say, words which as a matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used to or of another person in such other person´s presence, naturally tend to provoke violent resentment, that is, words commonly called 'fighting words';

If you watch the full video, you can even see Mr. Aldrin try to escape from the retard's trap on several occasions, only to be corralled by the retard and his hired goons.   To my eyes, that is enough to invoke self defense.

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

[vk6zgo]

Apparently walking on the moon has its privileges.  Others are sent to jail for much less than that.

You have to take it on a case-by-case basis. He was stalked for years by this guy which is not a normal case, he was lured into an altercation under false pretenses by the perpetrator, and then cornered and physically intimidated and verbally abused.
Not saying his name didn't have anything to do with it, but you can't just go around throwing general comparisons.
He didn't just punch some random dude in the street who hurled verbal abuse at him.

In my opinion,Doctor Aldrin's reaction was understandable after being "monstered" by this bloke,who clearly would not be discouraged by words.
Obviously,the Authorities agreed!
Most law enforcement regimes look very much askance at younger,larger,men who harass elderly gentlemen.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

I want to know how a previous poster saw the orbiter from his house with/without a telescope. That shouldn't have been possible...

As a tiny dot of light?

[EEVblog]

Sorry but you're very wrong here! Punching somebody is NEVER acceptable outside of defending yourself from bodily harm. I can't count the number of times some asshole got up in my personal space and pissed me off. If your significant other says something to piss you off is it ok to punch them? How bout your kid, or your boss?

Ludicrous comparisons. I won't dignify it with a response.

If the man was stalking him for years why didn't he get a restraining order or do something else that deal with it inside the boundaries of the law?

Ok, lets assume he did. Doesn't stop the guy coming up and doing exactly what he did anyway.
Total non-sequitur to what happened.

Hitting punching and physical violence used to deal with a stressful situation

It's not a "stressful situation" he saw coming and was somehow building up the rage to do.
An 80 year old man was lured into a trap, cornered, no doubt startled, and physically towered over and verbally abused by someone he only then realised was stalking him?
And you say it's not ok for him to hit the guy in heat of the moment/fear?
Sorry, but I disagree.

[EEVblog]

For schoolchildren, I think those problems are quite common, and I will always side with anyone that stands up to a bully in any way, whether in defense of themselves or another.  The effects a single bully has can last decades.

Example in point of a video that went viral, and it just so happens to be from the same high school that I went to:
The poor fat kid had been picked on and teased for years by these other kids, and he finally had enough. He had every right to smash that little punk onto the ground.

[electrophiliate]

Pow right in the kisser! If Aldrin didn't punch Sibrel in the face back then, he would probably still be getting periodically harassed today by Sibrel.

Conspiracy theories often give conspirators too much credit.
I tend to suspect that governments are too incompetent to keep something so huge and public like that secret for over 40 years.
Considering how many civilians were involved, someone would have talked by now (with real evidence).
Did the USSR ever say "you lying bastards are faking it, we will do it for real!"? No, they conceded the race to the USA.

The common reasons for doubting the moon landing fail hard.
e.g. No stars in the background in photos on the moon? Photography 101.

How does a moon landing denier explain the mirror on the moon which scientists use to bounce lasers off?
Did it get there the same way as the (faked photo of) WW2 bomber on the moon?! Hehe.

[echen1024]

I think Aldrin had every right to punch the guy. He stalked him relentlessly, and then lured him to an event which was completely different to what he expected. Finally, he verbally insults Aldrin, and appears to physically threaten him.

[zapta]

I mean why in hell would a government put a 60+ year embargo on some documents if they have nothing to hide? Everybody with a clear mind could only come to the conclusion that there must be something outraging in those documents? Why else keep it secret? And who gives them the autorithy to keep it secret from everybody?

What documents?

On topic: Concerning the moonlanding, how more open and well informed could you make it? It was broadcasted live on tv with everybody watching for pete sake?  No conspiracy there, how else would all those hundreds of kg's of moonrock ended up here in laboratories and musea?

Are you surprised that some people do not accept something that is so obvious to you? I am sure people on the other side think the same about your. There are X billions people in the world and we come with different wirings and experiences.

[tautech]

I don't like violence, I think violence is unnecessarily used about 99.9999% of the time, and I think there are times when violence is the only answer.

+1
I'm a pacifist.
But 15 years ago as I watched my younger(11 yr old) son get lower and lower in self-esteem, then not want to go to school, it was time to act.
All the PC shit failed, teacher's would not care.
So I schooled him on how to throw a decent punch(wrist straight, thumb outside his clenched fist) and gave him instruction on how to lure this bully away from his mates to somewhere private. He was as nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs that he might stuff it up and come off second best.
He knew he had one shot and had to make it count.
Well 3 days later we got a call from the school...... me lad had carried out the suggestions with stunning effect.
He was suspended from school and we had a little chat with the HM.
My boy has walked tall from that day forth, was never bullied again, has (to my knowledge) never had to fight again and the best bit, taught that little a-hole there are consequences for your actions.

[zapta]

I don't like violence, I think violence is unnecessarily used about 99.9999% of the time, and I think there are times when violence is the only answer.

+1
I'm a pacifist.
But 15 years ago as I watched my younger(11 yr old) son get lower and lower in self-esteem, then not want to go to school, it was time to act.
All the PC shit failed, teacher's would not care.
So I schooled him on how to throw a decent punch(wrist straight, thumb outside his clenched fist) and gave him instruction on how to lure this bully away from his mates to somewhere private. He was as nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs that he might stuff it up and come off second best.
He knew he had one shot and had to make it count.
Well 3 days later we got a call from the school...... me lad had carried out the suggestions with stunning effect.
He was suspended from school and we had a little chat with the HM.
My boy has walked tall from that day forth, was never bullied again, has (to my knowledge) never had to fight again and the best bit, taught that little a-hole there are consequences for your actions.

Was the bully physical with him before this assault?

Why do you call yourself pacifist if you advocate violence in certain situations? Isn't it a contradiction?  Even non pacifist don't use violence most of the time.

[zapta]

Example in point of a video that went viral, and it just so happens to be from the same high school that I went to:
The poor fat kid had been picked on and teased for years by these other kids, and he finally had enough. He had every right to smash that little punk onto the ground.

This was on local TV here and is a good example IMO for justified use of violence (by the fat kid).  Aldrin's case is different because the stalker was not physical with him.  BTW, I learned about Aldrin's incident in this thread from your post and it reduced my appreciation of Aldrin.

[tautech]

I don't like violence, I think violence is unnecessarily used about 99.9999% of the time, and I think there are times when violence is the only answer.

+1
I'm a pacifist.
But 15 years ago as I watched my younger(11 yr old) son get lower and lower in self-esteem, then not want to go to school, it was time to act.
All the PC shit failed, teacher's would not care.
So I schooled him on how to throw a decent punch(wrist straight, thumb outside his clenched fist) and gave him instruction on how to lure this bully away from his mates to somewhere private. He was as nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs that he might stuff it up and come off second best.
He knew he had one shot and had to make it count.
Well 3 days later we got a call from the school...... me lad had carried out the suggestions with stunning effect.
He was suspended from school and we had a little chat with the HM.
My boy has walked tall from that day forth, was never bullied again, has (to my knowledge) never had to fight again and the best bit, taught that little a-hole there are consequences for your actions.

Was the bully physical with him before this assault?

Why do you call yourself pacifist if you advocate violence in certain situations? Isn't it a contradiction?  Even non pacifist don't use violence most of the time.

Q1. What do you think?
My post was enough of an essay without the fine detail!
I will add both the boys were similar skinny 11 yr olds.
A re-read will reveal "his mates" meaning a gang of boys.
Q2. Well, the school had a duty of care to protect my child and was failing!
Explanation: refer to post.
I had recommended to "turn a blind eye" or walk away, all attempts to defuse had failed.
Could I have turned up in the school to sort it out, maybe but tensions would have remained.
End result was as predicted.
As the song goes: you have to know when to hold them, know when to fold them.....
Q3. Of course it's a contradiction. OK call me a "peace loving person" instead.
But this was about the welfare of my family, and that's different!

We would all benefit from the lesson: there are consequences for your actions and that is pertinent to most of the content in this thread.